Monday, 20 August 2012

"Bad sexual ettiquette" - George Galloway is becoming an embarrassment to Bradford


OK, George Galloway is a contravertialist, ever willing to say the unsayable, to defend the undefendable and to march fearlessly into the corridors of power shooting from the hip. But this might just tell us rather more about George, and it ain't good:

I mean not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion. Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you're already in the sex game with them.

It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said, "do you mind if I do it again?". It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning. . .

I don't adhere to the tedious "all men are rapists" argument heard too often from feminist agitators but it does seem to me that having "another insertion" without the woman's agreement is rape. George Galloway is entitled to take the view that the women in the Assange case weren't assaulted (although we'd know the answer to this if the dear old chap would pop over to Sweden for his trial) but to describe penetrative sex without the woman's consent as anything other than rape is quite appalling.


1 comment:

Smoking Scot said...

I agree that George was silly to get involved in the technicalities. On the other hand, the guy's on to wife #4, so it's safe to assume that "until death do us part" was simply a fancy phrase to him.

On the other hand he does make a very valid point - the women involved are no innocents themselves. There seems to be more to this than opportunistic rape and fondling.

We've heard about people in power having affairs and being set up. Even John Major had his little fling and had to pay the price of utter humiliation over his choice of mistress!

Assange - more than many - is aware of dodgy dealings. He was a fool, yet I do understand his need for an absolute commitment by the Swedish authorities that he will never be extradited to the US.

If, by subjecting himself to a court in Sweden on charges he and his colleagues know to be spurious, then ending up with the possibility of being jailed for life, or executed by the Americans, I can't say I blame the guy for seeking asylum.

The folk in Bradford knew perfectly well what they were getting when the elected George. Personally I disagree with the Spectator; they'll see it for what it is - a conspiracy.